Legal Compliance75/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and there are no reported disputes. The 29-day submission period is reasonable. However, the explicit mention of missing mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds in the AI extract, even if standard for below-threshold tenders, indicates a potential gap in the provided documentation.
•Lack of explicit mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds in the provided text.
Clarity60/100
The project description, background, and technical requirements are well-articulated and unambiguous. The Q&A section further clarifies many aspects. However, the critical flaw is the repeated reference to "assessment criteria" without providing the actual criteria, which severely impacts the clarity for bidders on how their proposals will be evaluated.
•Evaluation criteria are not specified, despite being referenced.
Completeness65/100
Most essential information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and location is provided. Technical requirements are detailed. The main deficiency is the absence of evaluation criteria. Additionally, one of the listed tender documents resulted in a "Page not found" error.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•One tender document is inaccessible.
Fairness55/100
The tender value is disclosed, and requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the complete lack of transparent evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be judged. The absence of electronic submission also limits equal access and modern procurement practices.
•No evaluation criteria provided
•No electronic submission.
Practicality60/100
Key practical details like contract start date, duration, and budget are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.
•No electronic submission supported.
Data Consistency85/100
The tender information is largely consistent across different sections and documents. Dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes. A minor inconsistency is the empty "Liable Person" field and the mention of EUR for the estimated value while the budget is clearly stated in GBP.
•"Liable Person" field is empty
•Minor currency discrepancy (EUR vs GBP for estimated value).
Sustainability75/100
The tender demonstrates a good focus on social sustainability by requiring DDA compliant inclusive play equipment and adherence to PIPA principles. It also includes green aspects such as natural-look equipment and natural shading (trees). There is no explicit focus on innovation or indication of EU funding.
•No explicit innovation focus.